> It's worth noting, with sober consideration, that exactly the same argument was made to support Internet Explorer during the ugliest days of the web. This could have been cribbed verbatim from something a Microsoft advocate would have said in the late 90s.
I hate Microsoft, but the argument you mention was made because it was mostly right. IE "won" because it provided a better platform and better user experience, not for any other reason.
The focus on IE in antitrust battles has been a disgraceful waste of resources. There are far better things to attack Microsoft for than providing a better browser than the piece of shit later versions of Netscape turned into.
And why did Netscape turn into a "piece of shit"? Because Microsoft used their considerable monopoly power (bullying OEMs out of preinstalls, bundling IE with Windows,...) to make it impossible for Netscape to build a business around making a better browser.
The stagnation and backslide started circa 1995-1996. IE was barely a blip at that time. By 1998, Netscape was basically useless and their share was just starting to drop below 50%.
If you look at timelines instead of listening to hysterical lawyers, the truth becomes clear. If you listen to the people who were actually at Netscape during this time, it becomes even clearer. They were utterly lost in the woods before Big Bad Microsoft ate them alive.
I hate Microsoft, but the argument you mention was made because it was mostly right. IE "won" because it provided a better platform and better user experience, not for any other reason.
The focus on IE in antitrust battles has been a disgraceful waste of resources. There are far better things to attack Microsoft for than providing a better browser than the piece of shit later versions of Netscape turned into.